[Libreoffice] git submodule

[Miklos Vajna]

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 12:18:39PM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem of the tinderbox approach is the coarse granularity (it is
> not uncommon to have 1/2 a dozen or more of independent commit between
> 2 build, the reliability (tinderbox sometime are down and this is not
> necessarily detected quickly).
> furthermore if you only record 'good' tinderbox run, you may have a
> few days of commit in one interval. if you don't then you are in
> the same case than the scenario above (it doesn't build because of
> interdependent commit);

Hm, OK.

> One thing that we could do is that the pus-hook could do a commit
> amend if the committer is the same that the very last one.
> presumably linked commit on multiple repo are pushed 'together'
> so if a push on repos A is immediately followed by a push on repo B
> then the hook would do a git commit --amend instead of creating a new
> version. that ways you usually fold all theses change into one
> 'list-head'
> Of course you could have a race between two committer... but that is
> _really_ rare.

Automatic git commit --amend is really dangerous, I would not do it.
It's not an accident non-fastforwards are rejected while pushing.

So - in case post-receive hooks on the freedesktop servers are allowed
(CIA is not notified from such a hook at the moment), we could create a
githeads.git which is updated after every push and git bisect could run
there. Given that there is a githeads.txt in that repo, the g wrapper
could update the repos accordingly. Does this sound acceptable? (And
there could be multiple branches in githeads.git, just like in the
repos.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20110207/9d8b6d41/attachment.pgp>